If the word Aleim, Adonim, &c. necessarily implies plurality at all, it denotes a plurality of Gods. It is impossible to translate the word Aleim so as to favor the Trinitarian hypothesis. It must be rendered either God, or Gods. If it be rendered God, the idea of plurality does not appear; if it be rendered Gods, we have a plurality of Gods, which no Christian will admit. Dr. Wardlaw, pressed with this difficulty, has translated Deut. 6:4, “Hear, O Israel, JEHOVAH, our Gods (ALEIM) Is one JEHOVAH.” Mr. Robbins thinks the plural termination implies a plurality of persons. After giving a few examples, such as “Remember thy Creators,” he says, “These texts of Scripture seem to establish the fact that there is a plurality of persons in God, though they do not fix the number.”
If the word Aleim necessarily implies plurality, how is it that the Jews have never understood it in that sense, when applied to God? That they have not so understood it, is certain from the fact, that, in the Septuagint, they have always translated it in the singular number. The Jews have never been Trinitarians. The very people by whom, and for whom, the Scriptures of the Old Testament were written, in their own language, and from whom we have derived all our knowledge of that language, have always maintained the doctrine of the Unity of God, in opposition to a plurality. Is it possible that they could have remained ignorant, to this day, of the true meaning of a most important word in their native tongue; a word connected with every part of their religion? If we suppose the Jews to have been thus ignorant, is it possible that Jesus Christ and the Apostles should not have corrected their error, if indeed it was an error? Yet they have always translated the words Aleim, Adonim, &c. when they denote God, by a word absolutely of the singular number. The very passage which Mr. Wardlaw translates thus, “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah, our GODS, is one Jehovah,” is thus translated into Greek, by the Evangelist Mark: “The Lord, our God, is one Lord.”—Mark 12:29. The plural form never appears in the New Testament, although the doctrine of the Trinity, which this form is supposed to support, is said to be the fundamental doctrine of the New Testament. As the Hebrew names of God, which have a plural form, are always translated into Greek by the word QEOS, of the singular number, instead of QEOI, of the plural, this ought to settle the question. Are not the inspired Apostles and Evangelists as sure guides to the import of a Hebrew word, as Mr. Wardlaw and Mr. Robbins?
Mr. Christie, in his discourses on the Unity of God, says, “that in all languages there are words of a plural termination, that have a singular signification, and that this is an idiom of the Hebrew language, and is acknowledged to be so by some of the best Trinitarian critics themselves.”
Wilson, in his Hebrew Grammar, p. 270, says, “Words, that express dominion, dignity, majesty, are commonly put in the plural.”
Thus it is evident to the mere English scholar, that the Hebrew names for God, which have plural terminations, may, according to a common rule of syntax, be used as singular, to denote but one. This rule may be illustrated by the following examples. On account of the authority and dignity of the patriarch Abraham, the Hebrew word Adonim, translated Master, (Gen. 24: 9, 10) is put in the plural number. Literally translated, the passage would read thus: “And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his masters, and sware to him concerning that matter; and the servant took ten camels of the camels of his masters, and departed; for all the goods of his masters were in his hand.” According to the same rule, Potiphar is called the masters of Joseph, in Gen. 39: 2, 3, 7, 8, 19, 20, and the Lords of Joseph, in verse 16, and 40: 7. Joseph is called “The man who is the Lords (Adonim) of the land,” Gen. 42:30, and “the Lords (Adonim) of the country,” in verse 33. God says to Moses, “See, I have made thee Gods (Aleim) to Pharaoh.”—Ex. 7:1. Here we have the same evidence for a plurality of persons in Abraham, Potiphar, Joseph, and Moses, which is urged by Trinitarians for a plurality of persons in God.
If Aleim is of plural import, when applied to God, and denotes a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, there cannot be less than six persons in the Godhead, without the Holy Spirit.
“Thy throne, O God, (Aleim) is forever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God (Aleim), thy God (Aleim), hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”—Ps. 45: 6, 7. In this passage it is supposed by Trinitarians, that God the Father, the first person in the Trinity, speaks to God the Son, the second person. But each one is called Aleim. If Aleim means Trinity, here we have one Trinity anointing another Trinity above his fellows. But if a Trinity has fellows, these fellows must be fellow Trinities, I suppose. Can one Trinity be anointed above another Trinity, without endangering their equality? This, I think, sufficiently exposes the absurdity of giving to Aleim a plural signification, when it is used to denote the Supreme Being.
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in translating this passage, has rendered the Hebrew Aleim by the Greek QEOS, a word absolutely singular. Now if he believed Aleim to be of plural import, he has handled the word of God deceitfully, and turned its truth into a lie. Had he been a Trinitarian, he would have translated as Trinitarians do. Had Mr. Wardlaw and Mr. Robbins translated Aleim as St. Paul (if he was the author of Heb.) has done, they must have stood condemned, at the tribunal of their own conscience, as having wilfully perverted the word of God.
4. As St. Paul has applied the passage under consideration to “the Son,” who is confessedly but one person, we have certain evidence that the word Aleim is sometimes of singular import. But if it be ever of singular import, it ought to be so understood when applied to God, whose Unity is so unequivocally asserted in the Scriptures.
5. Aleim is not only used to denote one single person, but is frequently applied to an idol. Let the reader critically examine Exodus 22: 3, 4, 7, 8, 31, and he will find Aleim, when used to denote the golden calf that Aaron made, rendered Gods, though neither Moses the writer, nor the translators, had the least suspicion that there was a plurality of persons in that dumb idol.
By consulting Judges 8: 33, and 16: 23, 24, it will appear that the plural Aleim is no less than five times used to denote one single idol, which was never thought to possess a plurality of persons; and that it is translated god, not gods, as in the case of the golden calf. 1 Kings, 11:33: Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Zidonians, Chemosh, the god of the Moabites, and Milcom, the god of the children of Ammon, are designated by the plural word Aleim, though each of these idols was but one person. If other examples are necessary, the reader may consult Num. 25: 1–5; Deut. 9: 7; 1 Sam, 4: 5–8; 1 Kings, 11: 5; 2 Kings, 1:2, 19: 37.
As these plural forms appear only in the Old Testament, where the doctrine of the Trinity is said to be not expressly taught, and entirely disappear in the New, in which the Trinity is said to be a cardinal doctrine, and to be more explicitly taught; and as they are often used to denote but one person or thing, it seems in the highest degree absurd to insist on their plural signification when applied to the only True God, whose strict Unity is so often and so unequivocally asserted both in the Old and the New Testament.
Another argument for a plurality of persons in the Godhead is derived from the use of the plural pronouns Our and Us, when God is supposed to be the speaker. Trinitarians have been able to collect, from the whole Bible, as many as three or four such passages, viz. Gen. 1:26, 3:22, 11:7, and Isa. 6:8. In answer to this argument I submit the following conssiderations.
1. In only one of these four texts does the plural pronoun necessarily imply a plurality of persons. “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”—Gen. 3:22. The expression, “one of us,” seems to allude to a plurality of persons, or intelligent beings. But that they were persons in the Godhead is impossible. For if God was the speaker, all, that was included in God, was included in the speaker. If in God there was a plurality of persons, the same plurality was in the speaker. Consequently the person, or persons, addressed, could not be persons in the Godhead. None but real distinct beings can converse together, or address each other, or hear conversation. Whenever God speaks to any person, that person is as much another being, as another person. No one, of a plurality of equal beings, can be the only True God. If the Supreme Being was the speaker, in this case, the beings, spoken to, could not be coequal persons in the Godhead.
2. The only attribute, which the passage ascribes to the beings denoted by the pronoun _us_, is the knowledge of good and evil. Now if there are any other intelligent beings, inferior to God, who resemble man in the capacity of knowing good and evil, it is reasonable to suppose the allusion was made to them. But it is certain there are such beings; and that they are called “Gods” in the 5th verse of this chapter. “In the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” These are the words of the serpent, to which the expression, “one of us,” unquestionably alludes. Therefore the assertion “The man is become as one of us,” only signifies, that the man was become as one of the host of heaven, or family of God; resembling them in the capacity of distinguishing between good and evil. Jesus uses the pronoun us, when speaking to his Father; and why may not the Father, when speaking to any of his children, or any of his servants? If a master were to say to his servant, concerning another person, “the man is become as one of us” in some branch of knowledge, which was common both to the master and servant, who would infer, from such a manner of speaking, that the servant was equal to his master, or that the master was himself a plurality of persons? And yet the doctrine of a plurality of equal persons in God is inferred, merely from his speaking in this manner to some of the heavenly host!
3. In the other three passages referred to, the pronouns, _us_ and _our_, do not necessarily imply a plurality of persons. It is common in all languages, with which we are acquainted, and it appears always to have been so, for an individual, especially if he be a person of great dignity and power, in speaking of himself only, to say we, our, us, instead of I, my, me. Thus the king of France says, “We, Charles the tenth.” The king of Spain says, “We, Ferdinand the seventh.” The Emperor of Russia says, “We, Alexander,” or “We, Nicholas.”
The following examples from the Scriptures further illustrate this universal custom.
Rehoboam, king of Israel, uses the pronoun _we_ when speaking of himself, thus, “What counsel give ye, that we may answer this people, who have spoken to me.”—1 Kings, 12: 9. See also 2 Chron. 10: 6–9.
Artaxerxes, king of Persia, uses the pronoun _us_ when speaking of himself, thus, “The letter which ye sent unto us, hath been plainly read before me.”—Ezra, 4:18.
Zedekiah, king of Judah, speaks of himself in the same manner, thus, “As the Lord liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death.”—Jer. 38:16. Who would infer from this manner of speaking, that in each of these kings there was a plurality of persons? Nor is this manner peculiar to kings. Christ uses the words _we_ and _our_, when speaking of himself, thus, “Verily, verily; I say unto you we speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness: If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you heavenly things?"—John 3:11, 12.
St. Paul, in describing his situation and feelings, uses the pronouns _we_, _our_, _its_, almost as frequently as _I_, _my_, _me_. And where is the writer, or the public speaker, who does not employ the same style? Are we to believe that every preacher and every orator of the present day, who says _we_, _our_, _us_, when he means no one but himself, employs a phraseology indicative of a plurality of persons in himself? If not, why should we believe God to be a plurality of persons, because in three or four instances he has spoken in this manner?
“If therefore we consider,” says Mr. Yates, “how common throughout the world has been the use of plural promouns to express the dignity and authority of the speaker, and that in the Scriptures this phraseology is employed by a Prophet, an Apostle, or a Prince, we cannot be surprised, that in three instances the King of Kings should employ the same majestic language. The wonder is, that the examples are so rare. Perhaps this form of expression was in general studiously avoided, in order to preserve the great doctrine of the Unity of God in one person, from the possibility of misapprehension.”
4. It is well known that Mohammed was a determined opposer of the doctrine of the Trinity: yet he often represents God as saying _we_, _our_, _us_, when speaking only of himself. This shows that, in his opinion, the use of such terms was not indicative of a plurality of persons. If no one infers, from their frequent use in the Koran, that Mohammed was a Trinitarian, surely their occurrence in a few places in the Bible ought not to be made a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.
5. A plurality of persons, when speaking of themselves, never say _I_, _my_, _me_, _mine_, _myself_. There is no rule, or custom, known among men, to justify such a style. Yet God always speaks of himself in the use of the singular pronouns, except in three or four cases. This proves, beyond all debate, that God is but one individual person. One person can say _we_, _our_, _us_; but a plurality of persons cannot say _I_, _my_, _me_, _mine_, _myself_.
6. Every Trinitarian, who argues for a plurality of persons, from the use of plural pronouns, strengthens the opposite argument of the Unitarian. For if the use of plural pronouns is proof that God is several persons, the use of singular pronouns is proof that God is but one person. And the three or four cases in which the plural pronouns are employed, weigh no more than the small dust of the balance against the thousands, and tens of thousands of cases in which the singular pronouns are employed. Therefore the evidence that God is but one person, which is furnished by the use of the singular pronouns, God being the speaker, is thousands of times as strong as the evidence that he is more persons than one, which is furnished by the use of the plural pronouns.
7. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness......So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.”—Gen. 1:26, 27. As God's purpose, which he expressed by saying, Let us make man, was carried into effect by one person only, as the singular pronouns he and his clearly indicate, it is proper to infer that no more than one person was meant by the plural pronouns us and our.
“And the LORD said....Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language.”—Gen. 11:7. “Let me go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.”—Gen. 18:21. By comparing these two passeges together, we find that the same Being who, in the one, is represented as saying, “Let us go down,” is, in the other represented as saying, “Let me go down.” And as the singular pronoun, _me_ and _I_, in the latter passage, can denote but one person, it follows that the plural pronoun _us_, in the former passage, means no more than one. If it be objected that the expression, in the latter passage, is “I will go down,” and not “Let me go down,” as I have rendered it—I answer, that the verb, in both passages, is in the future tense in the original Hebrew, and may be translated either imperatively, or indicatively. We have a singular example of the use of the pronoun both in the singular and plural number, by the same speaker, and in relation to the same subject, in 1 Kings, 12:6-9, and in the parallel passage in 2 Chron. 10:6–9, already referred to. When Rehoboam consulted the old men concerning a reply to be made to the people of Israel, he said, “How do ye advise, that I may answer this people?” But when he consulted the young men, he assumed a more majestic and princely style, and said “What counsel give ye, that we may answer this people?”
“Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I send me. And he said, Go, and tell this people,” &c. Isa. 6:8,9. As the pronouns I and he can denote but one person, it follows that the pronoun us, can mean no more than one person.
Finally, if these forms of expression were evidence that God did address some other being, who, of all the family above, would be so likely to be the object of such address, as his Son, "...by whom also he made the worlds?” So far as we are acquainted with the operations of Jehovah, it appears that all his works are effected through the agency of some intermediate minister. If God “created all things by Jesus Christ,” as we read in the Common Version, he would, unquestionably, sooner consult with him, especially in reference to the creation of man, than with any other being in the universe.
No comments:
Post a Comment